Some thoughts

[KGB]

Igor,

Yes the map is always unbalanced for someone (Yellow or White). What's the problem with that? It's 100% impossible to balance it evenly for both players as I have shown. This is well known in all turn based games (Risk, Axis and Allies, Chess etc) that involve moving men.

Also as I explained having all production come at the end of all players turns leads to the problem that Yellow gets an advantage because he doesn't have to defend his cities because he gets instant production.

My solution was that players should bid for turn order so that it's not random and so that moving first has a cost in the amount of gold you bid. Also I pointed out that map makers should put more space between cities so that newly produced armies can't immediately attack and must spent a turn moving which allows the other player time to equalize his production. Go back to the W----N-----------N----Y example again with both sides starting with 2 armies but the space between the 2 N cities requiring more than 1 turn of movement. On turn 1 White captures his neutral and starts production in both cities. Yellow captures his neutral and starts production in both cities. On turn 2 White has 4 armies to Yellows 2 but he can't reach any Yellow cities so must spend a turn between the neutral cities. On Yellows turn he reaches 4 armies and can defend his neutral city with 4 armies. On turn 3 White has 4 armies that can reach Yellows city with 4 armies and he also has 2 new armies but they can't reach anything. In this well designed map there is no advantage of going first because there is space between the cities.

If you want pure balance then wait for the next update and play simultaneous move games. Those are 100% equal which is why they were so popular in DLR.

KGB

[Igor]

Ouh... I just see that first-mover have new units already while others haven't yet. I call it advantage.

[KGB]

Igor,

I agree it's an advantage. Just like playing White in Chess has the advantage of moving first and dictating the opening line. There is nothing wrong with that. Without an advantage of some kind all games would end in a draw unless one side or the other had really bad luck.

The problem is your solution fixes one problem but creates another problem (advantage) somewhere else.

KGB

[smursh]

Previously it was discussed about bidding to go first. I still think this is the best fix. The following system could be used to prevent abuse:

Each player bids at the game start. You can always bid 0 if you don't want to.
If you choose to bid the minimum bid is 1/10th your starting gold or 30 gold, whichever is higher.
All bids are in increments of 5 gold.
The highest bidder pays his gold to the loser, but gets to go first.
In the event of a tie bid the computer randomly picks the winner who still pays his bid to the loser.

Now in order to go first you have given an advantage of extra gold to the loser to compensate for going first.

On larger maps where going first is of little value players probably won't bid and the game will be unchanged. On maps where going first is valuable making a good bid will be a test of skill.

A different system would need to be worked out for team and FFA, but you get the idea.

[Moonknight]

And the bidding system needs to be a prompt, not just a random box to fill in on the join screen, so that newbies know it exists...

[Igor]

Igor,

I agree it's an advantage. Just like playing White in Chess has the advantage of moving first and dictating the opening line. There is nothing wrong with that. Without an advantage of some kind all games would end in a draw unless one side or the other had really bad luck.

The problem is your solution fixes one problem but creates another problem (advantage) somewhere else.

KGB

Ghm... probably you havn't understood my argument. In chess white has only first moving but not new figures. In Warbarons White have not only 1-st move, he has just appeared units, and other players havn't yet while White already used them against others.
And I don't mind to make auction of 1-st moving.

[KGB]

Igor,

It's true Chess has a fixed number of pieces with no new ones arriving each turn. But other turn based games like Risk, Axis and Allies etc all bring in new pieces each turn for the player. For that matter so does prior version of Warlords and other turn based computer strategy games right down to card games like Magic: The Gathering where players draw cards (equivalent to getting new armies). I don't know of any turn based games (computer or otherwise) where units for all players appear at the same time unless the game has a simultaneous movement phase (Diplomacy).

The reason it seems like such a big deal in Warbarons is because the smallest map size (50x) is IMHO too small and map makers seem to think mirror maps with cities clustered in the middle are balanced due to their mirror nature when they aren't.

KGB

[Igor]

Ok, probably we both told all arguments, and all forum visitors read it.
What about 2 other thoughts:

2. I don't know, is it possible to do, or not, but it seems to be usefull for team games to let units of 2 or more team mates to stand at the same place.
3. Let players who plays with undercover name to be undercovered not only before game starts, but to the end of the game. Now it is not, but could be usefull.

[KGB]

Igor,

I'm fine with both of those.

With #3 I think you can figure out who the undercover player is though even if it's not revealed by simply looking at a players record and seeing if they won/lost the number points in the just completed game.

KGB

[Igor]

This is 'salt' of the question. Just enough, after game starts, to look at anyone's current game for to see do this man play with undercovered name in your game, or not play. I thought it would be good to close undercovered pleyer's game from over players taking part in this game.
For example, players 1,2,3 and 4 play FFA and player 2 plays with undercovered name. Turn 1 starts. Platers 1, 3 and 4 look at player 2's current games and don't see the game where both, looking player 1, 3 or 4 and undercovered player 2, take part. That could let player 2 to be undercovered while game is on. But I don't know is it possible to do.